Log in

View Full Version : China still socialist



Jay Rothermel
23rd October 2008, 05:57
from Workers World newspaper

Millions of workers affected
Foreign businesses in China forced to unionize
By Sara Flounders
Published Oct 18, 2008 6:54 AM

China is forcing some of the biggest corporations in the world to immediately allow workers in their giant plants, offices and shops to unionize. In a widely publicized 100-day campaign, the Chinese government set a deadline of Sept. 30 for corporations doing business there to recognize unions.

The ruling benefits millions of Chinese workers, who will now have a say not only in their wages but in working conditions and health and safety issues.

This sweeping change impacts almost all the U.S. Fortune 500 companies doing business in China. Wang Ying, a senior official with the state-backed All-China Federation of Trade Unions, explained that there are holdouts, such as Microsoft and pharmaceutical giant Wyeth. But even they "don’t dare say they will not set up unions. They are finding all kinds of excuses to put it off." (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 29)

The ACFTU is under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Two years ago it represented 170 million workers. Its goal by the end of the 100-day campaign was to increase its membership to 200 million—more than 12 times the number of unionized workers in the United States.

Will these unions be just paper organizations? The giant transnational corporations don’t think so, judging by their hostility.

Jim Leininger, the Beijing head of the U.S. management consulting firm Watson Wyatt, explained that "Many foreign firms see unions as an unnecessary hindrance." But they have acceded to the unions, he said, because "they don’t really have a choice." (CSM, Sept. 29)
These are companies that moved to China to lower manufacturing costs and avoid unions in their home countries. Now they "fear admitting the unions will give their Chinese employees the power to slow or disrupt their operations and will significantly increase the cost of doing business here." (New York Times, Sept. 12) In other words, they will have to pay more in wages and benefits. The new laws will also make it more difficult to fire workers.

Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Disney
Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Yum Brands—which operates KFC and Pizza Hut—have all been forced to agree to unions. Yum Brands has 160,000 workers in China. Wal-Mart has 83,000 workers at its 108 Chinese stores in 55 cities. Wal-Mart, Disney and Adidas have been singled out for using contractors that violate Chinese labor law.

A contract with Wal-Mart signed in late July brought an immediate 8 percent pay increase, along with job protection and legal support in addressing workers’ grievances over intimidation, forced overtime, fraudulent pay stubs and dangerous work conditions. Workers at Wal-Mart stores in the U.S. and other countries where unions have been kept out face similar conditions.

ACFTU representative Wang Ying says more than 4,100 major foreign companies run by the Fortune 500 are doing business in China. She says that despite "tremendous resistance," especially from U.S. companies, 82 percent of the companies have formed trade unions to date, and the figure would reach 90 percent by the end of this year. As of July before the campaign was started, workers had been able to form unions in less than 50 percent of the Fortune 500 firms. (China Daily, Oct. 7)

While global companies were the target of the 100-day campaign, Chinese companies and contractors make up the bulk of manufacturing work, and those not already unionized are facing pressure to do so.

The 100-day union drive follows strong legislation on labor contracts and arbitration passed by China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress, to strengthen employee rights "after decades of laissez faire investor-friendly policies." Chinese labor laws now guarantee the right to strike and the right to sue the employer directly. Chinese workers are increasingly turning to courts to enforce their rights to organize. (China Law Blog, Sept. 15)

Wildcat strikes led the way
The wave of unionization follows several years of growing wildcat strikes, tens of thousands of job actions, and efforts of Chinese workers to organize to defend their rights against super-exploitive conditions in foreign-owned plants. From 1995 to 2006 labor disputes increased 13-fold, according to China Law Blog. Many disputes erupted into mass demonstrations.
The role of unions is also changing. In Guangdong Province in the south, long the center of the largest number of foreign-owned plants, unions are becoming more aggressive in their demands. New labor laws and stricter labor law enforcement means that corporations can no longer avoid paying overtime.

ACFTU also has an active campaign to reach out to millions of new migrant workers who continue to flood in from the countryside. These are the workers with the lowest skills who hold the most oppressive jobs.

These campaigns are not socialist measures. Rather they are defensive efforts, spurred by mass struggle, to protect the workers from the worst effects of capitalist ownership, which has grown in China ever since the adoption of "market socialism" in the late 1970s.

‘Market socialism’—a concession
The Chinese Communist Party in the early years of the socialist revolution led heroic efforts to conquer extreme underdevelopment through such campaigns as the Great Leap Forward and the effort to move from collective farms to communes and rural industries.

These heroic efforts enabled the Chinese Revolution to mobilize a largely peasant population to lay the groundwork for a more modern society. Giant strides were made in literacy for the whole population. Mass immunization campaigns and basic health brigades brought epidemics and plagues under control. Infant mortality and life expectancy improved dramatically. Major construction projects undertaken by millions of volunteers brought irrigation, dams and modern roads to the countryside for the first time.

Meanwhile, the developed imperialist world kept China blockaded, sanctioned and isolated from the modern technologies that were changing the West.

In the late 1970s the grouping in the Chinese leadership often called "capitalist roaders" made dangerous concessions in an effort to overcome underdevelopment and attract modern technology and investment capital. China opened its doors to imperialist corporations. The communes were broken up and land use was virtually privatized.
Initially, special capitalist enterprise zones were established. Thousands of Western corporations flocked to take advantage of the low wages that millions of peasants arriving from rural areas were willing to accept.

From the 1990s on, the socialist economy made further concessions. Today more than 150,000 foreign-owned enterprises operate in China. They parcel work among hundreds of thousands of subcontractors.

The All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce reported last February that nearly 200 million Chinese, out of a 1.3 billion total population, worked in private enterprises. However, these enterprises produced 60 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
The government’s policy also encouraged the growth of a capitalist class within China. In perhaps the most dangerous concession, the Chinese Communist Party has agreed to allow members of that class into the workers’ own party.

Imperialism remains hostile
U.S. imperialism for decades has aimed to penetrate China’s economy and political structure enough to carry out a complete capitalist counter-revolution.

Even while U.S. corporations flooded into China, the Pentagon continued its plans to surround China with bases. It arms and continues to support a separate, hostile government in Taiwan, an island that is internationally recognized as part of China.

The U.S. also supports and gives endless publicity to the Tibetan separatist movement and finances the phony government-in-exile headed by the Dalai Lama.

China’s economy has continued to grow. It now holds a huge trade surplus with the U.S. But the money that China holds means that a significant part of the economy is hostage to the constantly devaluing U.S. dollar. Nevertheless, China has been able to invest billions in infrastructure projects and finance its development.

The capitalist market has made serious inroads in production, distribution and finance. International banks were just recently granted the legal right to buy major stakes in Chinese banks. A great deal of China’s growth is linked to export-oriented manufacturing industries.
The impact of the worldwide capitalist crisis on foreign corporations doing business in China is not yet known. The interests of several million small entrepreneurs, merchants and traders, along with a growing number of big Chinese capitalists, are bound up with imperialism.
But China’s revolutionary break with imperialism in 1949 still remains a mighty social force. It inspires millions of Chinese workers to this day. The recent laws and organizing campaigns are giving the workers new strength when and where they most need it. By all accounts, in both the Chinese media and the Western corporate media, they are taking advantage of the moment.

[Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.]

#FF0000
23rd October 2008, 06:23
Making businesses unionize does not equal Socialism.

It's a progressive step, I guess, but China is not socialist just because of this.

Saorsa
23rd October 2008, 06:32
All this represents is the Chinese ruling class getting nervous about the increasing levels of working-class militancy in China (the article mentions wildcat strikes), and deciding to try and buy off the workers with this phoney unionization. As well as that, increased powers to the state-controlled union gives the Chinese ruling class more control over the foriegn companies operating in it's territory, which is obviously a good thing for it considering the financial troubles capitalism is suffering.

Random Precision
23rd October 2008, 06:54
Will these unions be just paper organizations? The giant transnational corporations don’t think so, judging by their hostility.

I'm guessing a few like Wal-Mart will not realize that having the state-controlled unions in their shops will actually help defend their interests by providing discipline to the workers.

KC
23rd October 2008, 07:05
Unions in china are controlled by the Communist Party. Having unions controlled by those who they are supposed to be defending their workers against aren't really effective.

Junius
23rd October 2008, 09:56
Unions in china are controlled by the Communist Party. Having unions controlled by those who they are supposed to be defending their workers against aren't really effective.

This is not particularly different from other countries.

Most unions, in the UK, Australia, USA, Japan, South Korea and so forth, are controlled by the socio-democratic parties and likewise have influence amongst them - i.e. ruling class parties. The concept of a worker's controlled union doesn't have much weight these days. They are the labor lieutenants of the working class.

Yehuda Stern
23rd October 2008, 12:15
All this represents is the Chinese ruling class getting nervous about the increasing levels of working-class militancy in China (the article mentions wildcat strikes), and deciding to try and buy off the workers with this phoney unionization. As well as that, increased powers to the state-controlled union gives the Chinese ruling class more control over the foriegn companies operating in it's territory, which is obviously a good thing for it considering the financial troubles capitalism is suffering.

Excellent post. The yellow unions in Russia in the times of the Czar were created for exactly the same purpose. There is nothing revolutionary or socialist about company unions.

Q
23rd October 2008, 12:56
All this represents is the Chinese ruling class getting nervous about the increasing levels of working-class militancy in China (the article mentions wildcat strikes), and deciding to try and buy off the workers with this phoney unionization. As well as that, increased powers to the state-controlled union gives the Chinese ruling class more control over the foriegn companies operating in it's territory, which is obviously a good thing for it considering the financial troubles capitalism is suffering.
This. The "unions" are nothing more than an attempt by the state apparatus to remain control over the class struggle. There is nothing progressive in that.

Dr. Rosenpenis
23rd October 2008, 13:32
This isn't exactly "company unions", they're state unions. In past circusmtances, state unions have been used to wrest working class activism in favor of the government, which is what I suspect may be happening here. I'm very skeptical to accept that this actually benefits workers or that the Chinese Communist Party is a workers' party, like the article claims. Who are these people defending Chinese capitalism so adamantly?

ROM
23rd October 2008, 13:34
China always called the USA capitalists and imperialists PAPER TIGERS.
The Unions are PAPER UNIONS in China. Chinas long term plan is to help the Capitalists provide the technology to produce goods then boot thier ASSES
out of the country and the State will take over the entire industrialzsation.,wich will be a good thing gut a bad thing for the workers. The Unionization is a fascade
only to appease the foriegn investors. Do you really believe the paper unions
in China are for real. If so i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

BobKKKindle$
23rd October 2008, 18:05
There is only one legal trade union in China (The ACFTU) and it is subject to the direct control of the government. This means that forcing workplaces to unionize will not give workers the means to push for genuine improvements in their position, and so they will still be forced to accept low wages and work for long hours in dangerous conditions. This proposal may even improve the bargaining position of the employers because the unions will be able to restrain the militancy of the workers and force them to moderate their demands when they decide to take strike action.

The title of this thread implies that China was socialist at some point and has since reverted to capitalism. In reality, China has never been socialist, because the productive forces have never been subject to democratic control and the state has always prevented workers from talking openly about political issues and putting forward their own ideas on how the economy should be organised. The 1949 seizure of power was progressive in many areas especially with regard to the liberation of women (one of the first decisions taken by the new government was to abolish the practise of foot-binding and to make women legally equal to men in marriage law) but it did not lead to socialism.

KC
23rd October 2008, 18:54
This is not particularly different from other countries.

Most unions, in the UK, Australia, USA, Japan, South Korea and so forth, are controlled by the socio-democratic parties and likewise have influence amongst them - i.e. ruling class parties. The concept of a worker's controlled union doesn't have much weight these days. They are the labor lieutenants of the working class.That was my point.


This isn't exactly "company unions", they're state unions. In past circusmtances, state unions have been used to wrest working class activism in favor of the government, which is what I suspect may be happening here. I'm very skeptical to accept that this actually benefits workers or that the Chinese Communist Party is a workers' party, like the article claims. Who are these people defending Chinese capitalism so adamantly?Workers' World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization (frso.org) still consider China to be socialist. In other words, they're insane.

Honggweilo
24th October 2008, 16:54
That was my point.

Workers' World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization (frso.org) still consider China to be socialist. In other words, they're insane.

What a shallow analysis.. for example the latest PSL publication for example "China - Revolution and Counter-Revolution" doesnt mindlessly describe China as socialist, it harshly critizes China's capitalist restoration, creating a new national bourgeoisie and the dismantleling of the socialist economy.. but it also conciders its still remaining progressive structural elements, like price-control, social services, heavly subsidized developement of underdeveloped areas, strict controled monetary system , conditionless loans to/trade with developing nations, and what essential role China playes in being an ally against US geopolitical hegemony... especially for nations like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Boliva, the DPRK, ect..

https://secure2.convio.net/peppsl/site/Ecommerce/1843764017?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=1161&store_id=1221&JServSessionIdr001=yi7syfjep3.app7b

The Workers Party of Belgium and the NCPN hold the same positions

KC
24th October 2008, 16:57
I honestly don't care what their publications say; their members still "consider China to be socialist". I got that right from their mouth; call them shallow if you wish, but that is what the membership believes, no matter how "indepth" they attempt to formulate it.

Honggweilo
24th October 2008, 17:13
I honestly don't care what their publications say; their members still "consider China to be socialist". I got that right from their mouth; call them shallow if you wish, but that is what the membership believes, no matter how "indepth" they attempt to formulate it.
I heard a CWI member say that he considered Obama to be a marxist, is that also the international line of the CWI?

KC
24th October 2008, 17:18
One moron isn't really the same as an entire organizational chapter. You're in the Netherlands anyways, so what do you know?

Hit The North
24th October 2008, 17:28
China still socialist.

How good it is to begin the weekend with a joke.

Honggweilo
24th October 2008, 17:55
One moron isn't really the same as an entire organizational chapter. My point exactly


You're in the Netherlands anyways, so what do you know?Well the CWI has a chapter here too ya know...

KC
24th October 2008, 17:57
My point exactly

So, your point was that your point was pointless...


Well the CWI has a chapter here too ya know...

Yes, but we're talking about PSL.

Led Zeppelin
24th October 2008, 17:59
Well the CWI has a chapter here too ya know...

Which CWI member in the Netherlands said that Obama was a Marxist?

And I'm pretty sure KC was referring to the PSL when he said "what do you know...", not to the CWI.

BraneMatter
24th October 2008, 18:12
There are some 73 million members of the CPC, and one would hope there are still a significant number of true believers in that group, and that the capitalist road being taken will eventually be reversed.

The current economic crisis may cause China to rethink it's dependence on Wal-Mart and the American consumer, and they may even cut off all the out-of-control borrowing by the U.S. as well. If that happens, how will the U.S. government survive??? (lol) Capitalism may not look so rosy right now in a lot of places around the world.

I have not given up on China quite yet...

Honggweilo
24th October 2008, 19:15
My point exactly So, your point was that your point was pointless...No, my point was to make your first point look pointless by showing the fallacy of your point by comparing it to a similar point, which in effect makes your first point pointless


Yes, but we're talking about PSL.its pretty obvious that we have international exhanges with our fraternal parties on these issues on various occasions, which are the cause with the PSL aswell as with the FRSO and WWP.

Q
24th October 2008, 19:31
Which CWI member in the Netherlands said that Obama was a Marxist?
Just reiterating the question.

zimmerwald1915
24th October 2008, 19:35
My guess is that whoever it was was either physically or mentally impared at the time.

Also, it's been said already, but this is in every way a victory for Chinese capitalists and in no way good for the workers.

Honggweilo
24th October 2008, 20:04
Just reiterating the question.
Its was an hypothetical question :p

Killuminati
24th October 2008, 20:14
Corporate state socialist :)?

zimmerwald1915
24th October 2008, 20:31
So many oxymorons my head exploded?